On 6/1/26 10:16, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
Hi
Am 2026-06-01 16:15, schrieb Ben Ramsey:
Since I wrote three of those messages, I should like to think I know
what my own concerns were. The meaning of my statements can be both
about the terminology _and_ the policy. These concerns aren't mutually
exclusive.
The requested change to the policy itself (“don't have separate roles”)
necessarily implies a change to the terminology, since without separate
roles there is no need for terminology describing the roles. I'm not a
native speaker of English, but the way the emails were phrased, the two
concerns were inseparably linked with each other with the concern about
the policy being the “actual” concern (e.g. “notion of” in the first
quote, “distinction” in the third quote, “and” from the elided part of
the fourth quote). That's why I explained why the policy looks the way
it looks, which didn't receive any further reply with clarification that
the terms themselves would also be a concern for an otherwise unchanged
policy.
Best regards
Tim Düsterhus
No worries. I didn't reply with clarification because I assumed your
response meant you were not interested in entertaining changes to the
terminology. The vote has passed now, so I guess few others shared the
same concerns.
Cheers,
Ben
